Indiana does what states should do (Page 2): That is the same study that Paul and I have been discussing. My comments in my last post are concerning that study.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

Richard94611 wrote:

This may be of interest in this discussion:

The Scientist » The Nutshell
Zeroing in on the Gay Gene
The largest study yet of the genetic roots of homosexuality links sexual preference in men to two regions of the genome.

By Bob Grant | November 19, 2014

ALEKSANDAR STOJKOVIC/SHUTTERSTOCK
At least in men, homosexuality may be a function of genetics, according to a study of more than 400 pairs of gay brothers. The research, published yesterday (November 18) in Psychological Medicine, confirms the role of a stretch of the X c********e in determining sexual preference in men, a finding first suggested more than 20 years ago. Geneticist Dean Hamer, scientist emeritus at the National Institutes of Health, published a study in 1993 that proposed that Xq28, a region of the X c********e, might play a role in determining whether a man was gay. When you first find something out of the entire genome, youre always wondering if it was just by chance, Hamer told Science of the new study, adding that the research clarifies the matter absolutely.

Hamer, who recently wrote an opinion piece in The Scientist about the responsibilities of researchers who study sexual orientation, only studied 38 pairs of brothers in his 1993 study, but he told New Scientist that he sees the new paper as confirmation of his work. Twenty years is a long time to wait for validation, but now its clear the original results were right, he said. Its very nice to see it confirmed.

But as was the case in 1993, not all researchers are convinced that science is homing in on the biological roots of sexual preference. Even the senior author on the Psychological Medicine paper, Northwestern University psychologist Michael Bailey, had his doubts. I thought that [Hamer] did a fine but small study, he told Science. If I had to bet, I would have bet against our being able to replicate it.

But when Bailey, who also wrote an opinion piece for The Scientist on the search for the biological roots of homosexuality, and his colleagues analyzed single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the DNA of the brother pairs, they found five SNPs that were commonly shared by all the gay men. And those SNPs clustered in the Xq28 region on the X c********e and in the 8q12 region of c********e 8.

Bailey and his colleagues are now working on a genome-wide association study to confirm the results of their genetic linkage research. This analysis, which will include DNA samples from more than 1,000 additional gay men, may narrow the search for genetic signals for homosexuality down to individual genes. It looks promising for there being genes in both of these regions, Bailey told Science. But until somebody finds a gene, we dont know.

This may be of interest in this discussion: br br... (show quote)

That is the same study that Paul and I have been discussing. My comments in my last post are concerning that study.

Richard94611

And the study described here may be of interest:

Gay gene discovery has good and bad implications

FOR gay rights activists, it's a dilemma. Does it help or hinder their cause if science shows that homosexuality is partly or largely biologically determined, rather than a lifestyle choice?

On the one hand, if sexual orientation is something people are born with, and cannot change even if they want to akin to skin colour or handedness this should overturn the notion that people choose to be gay and could equally well choose not to be. That knowledge would help rebut those who suggest that gayness is the result of a morally unacceptable decision, or a psychological disorder. It might also help people who struggle to understand or declare their own homosexuality.

On the other, some could try to redefine homosexuality as a biological a******lity. There is no way to change people's sexuality, but if key genes are found, it might be possible to detect homosexuality before birth, or to "cure" people by altering those genes. Even the threat of this could be used to persecute: consider the ugly histories of prenatal sex se******n and of coerced and ineffectual "therapies" for homosexuals. It is no wonder that some activists see in such research the "seeds of genocide".

This debate has rumbled on for years. But as we report this week, there is growing evidence that male homosexuality has a strong genetic contribution (see "Largest study of gay brothers homes in on 'gay genes'"). Other biological components of homosexual behaviour have also been found: brain structures that differ with sexual orientation, for example, and robust theories for how genes survive in the population despite rarely being passed on by homosexual people.

To socially liberal and tolerant people, this new knowledge will be entirely unchallenging. It is in circles where homosexuality is still considered problematic of which there are many that it could have implications.

There is some evidence that people who see homosexuality as biologically determined are more tolerant than those who see it as a lifestyle choice. But it is not clear which way the arrow of causation points: it may be that tolerant people are more inclined to believe in biological determinism. And there is also a growing understanding that simply presenting people with evidence that contradicts their world views does not change their minds: rather than assimilate the information, they just intensify their efforts to reject it.

This seems a likely response among those who object to homosexuality. Homophobia has deep and complex causes. It may itself be partly biological in origin: for example, straight people with a stronger innate disgust response are also more likely to oppose gay marriage. You might as well ask: why not search for genes that make some people virulently h********c?

Science cannot overturn such prejudice on its own, particularly when it clashes with world views that stipulate how society should be ordered. From these spring the urge to show that homosexuality is "unnatural", which the genetic evidence disputes. But human sexuality is in any case flexible and creative. Deeming certain behaviours unnatural is absurd: most of us have desires that could be labelled thus, and the natural world abounds with practices no human would attempt.

Ultimately, what causes homosexuality doesn't matter as much as the fact that homosexual people exist, and have always existed, in every society on earth. In the words of the activists: some people are gay. Get over it.

no propaganda please wrote:

It is still just that there may be a link between ... (show quote)

jelun

RETW wrote:

http://politicaloutcast.com/2015/03/lying-headlines-about-religious-freedom-in-indiana/

Its about time some one made sense of this.

Guys in this country have been pushing there agenda on the American people for to long.

RETW

Yes, you GUYS certainly have been pushing your agenda for much too long. It is boring, give it up.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

Richard94611 wrote:

And the study described here may be of interest:

Gay gene discovery has good and bad implications

FOR gay rights activists, it's a dilemma. Does it help or hinder their cause if science shows that homosexuality is partly or largely biologically determined, rather than a lifestyle choice?

On the one hand, if sexual orientation is something people are born with, and cannot change even if they want to akin to skin colour or handedness this should overturn the notion that people choose to be gay and could equally well choose not to be. That knowledge would help rebut those who suggest that gayness is the result of a morally unacceptable decision, or a psychological disorder. It might also help people who struggle to understand or declare their own homosexuality.

On the other, some could try to redefine homosexuality as a biological a******lity. There is no way to change people's sexuality, but if key genes are found, it might be possible to detect homosexuality before birth, or to "cure" people by altering those genes. Even the threat of this could be used to persecute: consider the ugly histories of prenatal sex se******n and of coerced and ineffectual "therapies" for homosexuals. It is no wonder that some activists see in such research the "seeds of genocide".

This debate has rumbled on for years. But as we report this week, there is growing evidence that male homosexuality has a strong genetic contribution (see "Largest study of gay brothers homes in on 'gay genes'"). Other biological components of homosexual behaviour have also been found: brain structures that differ with sexual orientation, for example, and robust theories for how genes survive in the population despite rarely being passed on by homosexual people.

To socially liberal and tolerant people, this new knowledge will be entirely unchallenging. It is in circles where homosexuality is still considered problematic of which there are many that it could have implications.

There is some evidence that people who see homosexuality as biologically determined are more tolerant than those who see it as a lifestyle choice. But it is not clear which way the arrow of causation points: it may be that tolerant people are more inclined to believe in biological determinism. And there is also a growing understanding that simply presenting people with evidence that contradicts their world views does not change their minds: rather than assimilate the information, they just intensify their efforts to reject it.

This seems a likely response among those who object to homosexuality. Homophobia has deep and complex causes. It may itself be partly biological in origin: for example, straight people with a stronger innate disgust response are also more likely to oppose gay marriage. You might as well ask: why not search for genes that make some people virulently h********c?

Science cannot overturn such prejudice on its own, particularly when it clashes with world views that stipulate how society should be ordered. From these spring the urge to show that homosexuality is "unnatural", which the genetic evidence disputes. But human sexuality is in any case flexible and creative. Deeming certain behaviours unnatural is absurd: most of us have desires that could be labelled thus, and the natural world abounds with practices no human would attempt.

Ultimately, what causes homosexuality doesn't matter as much as the fact that homosexual people exist, and have always existed, in every society on earth. In the words of the activists: some people are gay. Get over it.

And the study described here may be of interest: b... (show quote)

If the study is as reported, it is too incomplete to be of any value except as propaganda materiel. To add validity to the study several things must be determined. Did they also test at lease as many heterosexual identical twins and find NONE of them had the same stretch in the coding? What did they find when they tested identical twins where one ended up heterosexual and one homosexual? Did they include as many twins raised apart from birth as raised together? Did they include random samples of hundreds of heterosexuals who were not twins, and homosexuals who were not twins? Did they include fraternal twins as well as identical twins? Those requirements would have to be met to make the study valid, as far as I can see. Remember the "gay gene" study was proclaimed to have determined a "gay gene" even though the authors claimed no such thing. The brain size study was also faulty, as all those who were claimed to be homosexual had AIDS and were being treated, and those in the other group did not have AIDS but did not declare their homosexual or heterosexual attractions, they were assumed to be heterosexual because they did not have AIDS. Both studies were useless ecept as propaganda, and at this point, the study just announced seems to be in the same category.
As far as the comment that there have always been same sex attracted people, so what? There have always been people with many other behavior a******lities, which does not make them have spial rights, real or imagined.

saltwind 78 Loc: Murrells Inlet, South Carolina

RETW, I don't see how demanding the same rights that everybody else has constitutes some conspiracy of a secret gay agenda. People have a right to live as they are. While it is true that there has been no discovery of a gay gene, it is also true that being gay or straight is not a choice. It is the way some folks are. It has amazed me that conservatives insist that government get off the peoples back, but invite them into the bedroom. You do not have the right to discriminate against people for their sexual orientation any more than you have a right to discriminate on the basis of race or religion. quote=RETW]So because you are gay, your rights trump every one else. Of course all in the name of the right to pursue happiness.
I can hear you all now. ((( Its right in the Constitution. ))) And its given to us by God. Yes, yes, yes, we have all heard that before. The only rights you care about is your own.

God did not give you the right to be gay.
He gave you the choice to be one or the other. He has told you what you should not do. Its your choice. Because you choose to be gay, dose not give you the right to force the rest of us to side with you. The constitution dose not give you the right , or a local, state, or federal judge the right, to force that life stile on any one.

RETW 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)[/quote]

ssgtgood

Richard94611 wrote:

Since blue eyes are hereditary, as is the condition of being gay, I think we should apply your same sanction to blue-eyed people. I don't like blue-eyed people. They look freaky to me. They make me uncomfortable about how strong and permanent my brown eyes are. Also, I think we should prohibit brown-eyed children from being adopted by blue-eyed foster parents because it runs the danger of making them feel "acceptable."

What?! You think being gay is hereditary? How do they reproduce. I realize that women gays can go to a sperm bank, but gay men can't. Color of eyes, hair, etc. is indeed hereditary but homosexuality is NOT, its a choice a person makes.

jelun

ssgtgood wrote:

What?! You think being gay is hereditary? How do they reproduce. I realize that women gays can go to a sperm bank, but gay men can't. Color of eyes, hair, etc. is indeed hereditary but homosexuality is NOT, its a choice a person makes.

Think gene, you silly fool.
You have absolutely no proof that people are not born homosexual or t*********r or bisexual.
That is honestly not the point. The point is that the US Constitution protects us all.
That includes us all.
I don't think hereditary was the word I would have chosen.
Regardless of that, I think you are trying to avoid the point. People have a right to expect that if they are willing to pay and are not acting in an manner that is inappropriate as a consumer that they deserve service.

ssgtgood

jelun wrote:

Think gene, you silly fool. br You have absolutel... (show quote)

And you have no proof that they are born that way. So I'm a fool and you're a b***h. How's that?
Semper Fi

jelun

ssgtgood wrote:

And you have no proof that they are born that way. So I'm a fool and you're a b***h. How's that?
Semper Fi

Yes, and you fought to guarantee those rights.
Yet another lie.

saltwind 78 Loc: Murrells Inlet, South Carolina

Either you don't understand or choose not to understand. The only time a gay has caused me any problem, was when I was caught in traffic in Chicago because of a gay p***e parade, but it could have just as well been a Memorial Day parade. Live and let live. I do my thing and what consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business or yours!

saltwind 78 wrote:

RETW, I don't see how demanding the same rights th... (show quote)

[/quote]

ssgtgood

jelun wrote:

Yes, and you fought to guarantee those rights.
Yet another lie.

Think I fought for your right to be so b***hey? Think again.

jelun

ssgtgood wrote:

Think I fought for your right to be so b***hey? Think again.

You really should not swear at me.
It doesn't go well.

Richard94611

How do they reproduce ? Think, man. Exercise some critical thinking and do some simple deduction.

ssgtgood wrote:

What?! You think being gay is hereditary? How do they reproduce. I realize that women gays can go to a sperm bank, but gay men can't. Color of eyes, hair, etc. is indeed hereditary but homosexuality is NOT, its a choice a person makes.

saltwind 78 Loc: Murrells Inlet, South Carolina

Being gay is probably a result of more than one thing. Parental guidance? Prenatal causes, and other unknown reasons. There are character disorders that also has unknown causes. What is known is that by the time a child reaches two or three it becomes increasingly more difficult to change. By the time he is four or so, its pretty much impossible.
The fact that this condition becomes recognizable by such an early age is clear proof that it not a choice.

Richard94611 wrote:

How do they reproduce ? Think, man. Exercise some critical thinking and do some simple deduction.

jelun

The ignorance of people who have the internet at their fingertips is astounding.